Friday, August 29, 2014

Helen Thomas, you are missed

CBC quotes Barack from yesterday's speech stating of Iraq:"I don't want to put the cart before the horse. We don't have a strategy
yet. I think what I've seen in some of the news reports suggests that
folks are getting a little further ahead of where we're at than we
currently are," he said.

I believe the bombs got dropped ahead of the planning.

And that would be on Barack.

I really wish we had a functioning press which would ask needed questions.

I think Helen Thomas would have spoken up.

I think she would have asked something like, "How can you start bombing and killing people when you have no plan? And when you aren't under attack yourself, how can you legally justify it?"

Thursday, August 28, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, Barack speaks
about Iraq, we note Chris Hill's continued stupidity as he continues to
lie about Iraq, over 800 civilians in Falluja have been killed from
Nouri al-Maliki's bombings, and much more.

Today on a KPFA newsbreak, Mark Mericle noted:Oakland Congresswoman Barbara Lee is one of three lawmakers who have
sent a letter to Republican House Speaker John Boehner calling for a
debate and a vote on an authorization for the use of military force in
Iraq when the House of Representatives returns on September 8th. In a
statement, Lee says that it's clear that the current US mission in Iraq
is extended beyond the limited, specific and targeted scope of
preventing genocide and ensuring the security of US personnel there.
Lee said the president must seek Congressional authorization before the
situation escalates further. She was joined by Democrat Jim McGovern
and Republican Walter Jones. The three were the principle co-sponsers
of a resolution that overwhelming passed the House with 370 votes. It
said the president should not deploy or maintain United States armed
forces in a sustained combat role in Iraq without the specific
authorization from Congress.

There are some in Congress who are calling on Obama
to push through a War Powers Resolution. Article II of the Constitution
grants the President the power to defend the country. But Article I
gives only Congress the power to declare war. So, what in a
post-war-on-terrorism era constitutes an actual war? In 1973, afraid of
Vietnam mission creep, Congress passed the War Powers Act,
which requires the President to consult Congress 60 days after engaging
in hostilities. If you count bombing a foreign country as hostile — as
the U.S. did against militants in northern Iraq on Aug. 7 — then the 60
days expires Oct. 7.Theoretically, if Congress cares about not further weakening its
oversight of the President’s ability to bomb whatever country he
pleases, lawmakers will move to pass a War Powers Resolution in the next
month. Presidents, including Obama, have argued that the War Powers Act
is unconstitutional. But a turf fight over who gets to go to war is the
last thing on Congress’ mind weeks before the midterm elections.

Meanwhile, US President Barack Obama insisted today that "throughout this process, we've consulted closely with Congress, and
the feedback I've gotten from Congress is, is that we're doing the right
thing."

He was speaking this afternoon at the White House -- in the suit that gave Cedric and Wally pause.

US President Barack Obama: Second, in Iraq, our dedicated pilots and crews continue to carry out
the targeted strikes that I authorized to protect Americans there and
to address the humanitarian situation on the ground. As Commander-in-Chief, I will always do what is necessary to protect
the American people and defend against evolving threats to our
homeland. Because of our strikes, the terrorists of ISIL are losing
arms and equipment. In some areas, Iraqi government and Kurdish forces
have begun to push them back. And we continue to be proud and grateful to our extraordinary personnel serving in this mission. Now,
ISIL poses an immediate threat to the people of Iraq and to
people throughout the region. And that’s why our military action in
Iraq has to be part of a broader, comprehensive strategy to protect our
people and to support our partners who are taking the fight to ISIL.
And that starts with Iraq’s leaders building on the progress that
they've made so far and forming an inclusive government that will unite
their country and strengthen their security forces to confront ISIL.
Any successful strategy, though, also needs strong regional
partners. I'm encouraged so far that countries in the region --
countries that don't always agree on many things -- increasingly
recognize the primacy of the threat that ISIL poses to all of them. And
I've asked Secretary Kerry to travel to the region to continue to build
the coalition that’s needed to meet this threat. As I've said, rooting
out a cancer like ISIL will not be quick or easy, but I'm confident
that we can -- and we will -- working closely with our allies and our
partners. For our part, I've directed Secretary Hagel and our Joint
Chiefs of
Staff to prepare a range of options. I'll be meeting with my National
Security Council again this evening as we continue to develop that
strategy. And I've been consulting with members of Congress and I’ll
continue to do so in the days ahead.

Barack was several minutes late for the appearance which is strange
until you realize he was supposed to begin speaking at four but had been
scheduled to meet, also at four, with US Vice President Joe Biden and
the National Security Council. Barack is said to have met for four
minutes ahead of the meeting. A quick four minutes. And, as he noted
in his remarks, he was meeting with them later that evening as well.

"Them" was identified in this White House press release:

Readout of the President’s Meeting with the National Security Council on Iraq and ISIL

This afternoon the President met with his National Security
Council to discuss the situation in Iraq, our ongoing efforts to support
the Iraqi government, and our comprehensive strategy to counter the
threat posed by ISIL in Iraq and Syria. The President will continue to
consult with his national security team in the days to come. Participants in today’s meeting included:The Vice President (via secure video)Secretary of State John Kerry (via secure video)Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel (via secure video)Attorney General Eric HolderSecretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson (via secure video)White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonoughNational Security Advisor Susan RiceU.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Samantha Power (via secure video)White House Counsel Neil EgglestonDirector of National Intelligence James ClapperDirector of the Central Intelligence Agency John BrennanChairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey (via secure video)Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James WinnefeldDirector of the National Counterterrorism Center Matthew OlsenU.S. Central Command Commander Lloyd Austin (via secure video)Director of the Office of Management and Budget Shaun DonovanDeputy National Security Advisor Antony BlinkenAssistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Lisa MonacoDeputy National Security Advisor for International Economics Caroline AtkinsonDeputy Secretary of State William BurnsWhite House Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa, and Gulf Region Philip GordonAssistant to the President and Director of the Office of Legislative Affairs Katie FallonDeputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq and Iran Brett McGurkU.S. Ambassador to Iraq Robert Stephen Beecroft (via secure video)

Suzanne George, Executive Secretary and Chief of Staff of the National Security Council

In an embarrassing article for the Guardian (Barack is seen as torn -- deer in the headlights, little puppy, etc.), Spencer Ackerman does note, "Obama’s national security team convened at the White House Thursday
afternoon to discuss the contours of a still-inchoate strategy.
Administration officials have recently begun describing Isis in apocalyptic and near-hysterical terms,
even as they decline to endorse additional military action against it, a
discrepancy that has prompted confusion in Washington and beyond."

Maybe these sketchy meetings explain in part why the 'mission' in Iraq still lacks a mission?

This alarming lack of purpose is reflected in how the world’s
superpower is confused about what it is trying to do. President Barack
Obama has offered some deeply contradictory messages as he first
authorised humanitarian support on a strictly limited basis, but then
talked of refusing to allow Isil to continue and the necessity of a long
drawn-out struggle.

It is clear that the growing acceptance of the importance of defeating
Isil is creating some very uneasy alliances, as the Iranians and Bashar
Al Assad regime in Syria offer to work with the Americans and Saudis.
This fits into the new pragmatic search for stability that will dominate
the Arab world for the next few years, as regional and world powers
work with any non-Islamist who can regain control of a nation state and
impose an end to civil war and chaos.

Let's knock out the discussion at the State Dept today in the press briefing moderated by spokesperson Jen Psaki:

QUESTION: We talked about – yesterday on Iraq we talked about the situation for – of the Turkmen in the north of the country.MS. PSAKI: Sure.QUESTION: Do you have any more information about the supposedly dire
situation they’re in and what the United States might be planning?MS. PSAKI: Sure. I have a little bit on information. We are
very concerned about the dire conditions for the mainly Turkmen
population in Amirli as well as the ongoing humanitarian situation
throughout northern and central Iraq. We’re focused on reviewing options
to assess how we can best help alleviate the situation in Amirli. Our
embassy and military personnel at our joint operation centers in Iraq
are already working closely with the Iraqi Government to share
information and discuss ways to provide relief to those in need, and
certainly we’re having ongoing internal discussions as well.

The Turkmen are the latest in-need in Iraq.

It's a real shame when the in-need included gay and perceived gay
teenagers that the US government couldn't and wouldn't do a damn thing.
Since Hillary was Secretary of State then, should she run for the
presidential nomination, let's hope reporters have done their work and
are willing to ask her why she failed so many in need?

And will the in-need ever include the civilians of Falluja?

We've noted repeatedly that Nouri is shelling civilian neighborhoods in
Falluja and has been since the start of this year. We've noted
repeatedly that this is a War Crime and is legally defined as such.

At what point does the White House intend to object to ongoing War Crimes?

Many of the buildings are damaged or completely destroyed.
Anyone who manages to get into Fallujah will see a city that looks as
though it’s out of a picture taken just after World War II.

“Some areas – such as al-Hay al-Sinaie and Nazzal – have
been completely levelled,” one of the city’s tribal leaders, Ahmed
al-Halbusi, told NIQASH. “It would be almost impossible for people to go
back and live in those areas again because they are so damaged.
Additionally the Iraqi air force is still shelling those areas even
though we have no idea why.”

Al-Halbusi was now looking after a five-year-old boy named
Othman. “His whole family was killed in the Nazzal area,” al-Halbusi
explains. “He was playing in his garden and his family were in the house
when the house was hit. He was the only survivor.”

There are dozens of similar stories. The Iraqi army has
been attacking Fallujah since the beginning of the year. Every day the
army shells the city two different ways – with ground artillery from
their camps near the city. One of the major camps is the nearby Mazra
camp.

The people of Fallujah say that this method seems to be
fairly ineffective and doesn’t cause a lot of damage. They are far more
concerned about the second method the Iraqi army is using: air
bombardment.

Military helicopters bomb the city too – some of these
helicopters are old ones, dating back to Saddam Hussein’s army, and some
are new Russian-made machines, received recently. The helicopters often
use barrel bombs, locals say. When these land and don’t explode, they
try to disarm them.

Niqash can do a major piece on this, why are they the only ones who can?

These War Crimes take place every day.

We used the April 16th snapshot to demonstrate this, covering Nouri's bombings in January, February, March and April.

Do we need to do that again?

Spend an entire snapshot documenting these bombings and how many are left wounded or dead?

Nouri gets away with it because it is often just a few this day and a few that.

But we've pointed out that, over a prolonged period, these small daily numbers add up.

Doubt it?

National Iraqi News Agency reports:Spokesman for the hospital in Fallujah Dr. Ahmed Al-Shami said on
Thursday that the number of the martyrs in Fallujah since the beginning
of military operations by more than 8 months amounted to 812 people,
while the total number of wounded to 2488 people. He told the
National Iraqi News Agency / NINA / that this is not the final
statistics due to the continued bombardment of the city in addition to
that a number of the martyrs were buried without arriving to the
hospital and the wounded were treated in homes and health centers. He
added that 16 percent of the martyrs are children and 19 percent of
them women, while the injured proportion of children reached 11 percent
and women 17 percent.

What is the number that will prompt disgust and lead to vocal rejection of Nouri's assault on Sunni civilians?

The embarrassing UNHCR wanted to whine about 'terrorism' in Iraq.

What is terrorism but not being safe in your own home?

Read Mustafa Habib's piece for Niqash -- it's very clear that those civilians in the city are pretty much stuck there.

They shouldn't have to leave their homes to begin with but now they have no choice.

And these are the civilians Nouri kills and wounds daily.

When does this become an issue?

When the number killed hits a thousand?

At the end of February, I was speaking to a friend in the administration
about these murders -- they are murders, Nouri is a murderer. And it
was just so small, I was told, these deaths, and, besides, the US was
working with him on getting a cease fire. They'd eventually get a '48'
hour cease fire. But Nouri couldn't even honor that.

I want to know what the magic number is that leads to an international outcry?

I would have thought, myself, that the fact that these are War Crimes would prompt outrage.

Nope.

Very few acknowledge what's taking place.

What continues to take place.

And the silence that surrounds it goes to Nouri's enablers. Patrick
Cockburn is only one of many who have been silent. Nouri has had many,
many enablers.

Take Barack's first US Ambassador to Iraq Christopher Hill.

Chris Hill was a joke. A lazy idiot who showed up for his confirmation
hearing with his hair sticking out at all angles and food stains on his
shirt (see the March 25, 2009 snapshot and the March 26th one).

Nouri Al Maliki’s fitful departure from Iraq’s premiership recalled
many other cliffhanger exits by unpopular political leaders. His leaving
did not come a moment too soon for the many Iraqis who have laid all of
the country’s current troubles at his doorstep.

Did he mean 12 weeks -- which is also known as three months -- because
that's how much longer Nouri drug out the political stalemate.

The idiot told NPR that Nouri would abide by the results of the 2010 election.

But Nouri didn't.

Over and over, Chris Hill has been wrong.

Now he writes:

Al Maliki, according to this view, was endlessly divisive, driven by
authoritarian tendencies, lacking in elementary political skills, and
incapable of leading an army in disarray. But his greatest failure was
his inability to grasp that successful governance in Iraq requires
reaching out to other communities, notably the Sunnis and Kurds.

Instead, Al Maliki ordered preventive arrests of young Sunni men,
supposedly in anticipation of their defection to terrorist groups, and
hounded his political opponents, in some instances driving them out of
government (and in one case into exile).

No doubt, much of this narrative has a basis in fact. But if it were
the whole story, the mild-mannered, western-educated prime
minister-designate, Haider Al Abadi, would have an easy task in
stitching things back together. After all, Iraq’s Sunnis would have
every reason to support Al Abadi now that Al Maliki has gone.

Chris needs to spare Nouri because he enabled him. Calling him out now is calling out himself.

If you don't get what a liar Chris -- or Patrick Cockburn or any of
Nouri's concubines -- don't listen to me. I've talked this issue to
death.

Let's instead hear from Barack again. Here's what he said today:

Keep in mind we had been in communications with the Iraqi government for
more than a year indicating that we saw significant problems in the
Sunni areas. Prime Minister Maliki was not as responsive perhaps as we
would have liked to some of the underlying political grievances that
existed at the time.There is no doubt that in order for Iraq security forces to be
successful, they're going to need help. They're going to need help from
us. They're going to need help from our international partners.
They're going to need additional training. They're going to need
additional equipment. And we are going to be prepared to offer that
support.There may be a role for an international coalition providing
additional air support for their operations. But the reason it’s so
important that an Iraqi government be in place is this is not simply a
military problem. The problem we have had consistently is a Sunni
population that feels alienated from Baghdad and does not feel invested
in what’s happening, and does not feel as if anybody is looking out for
them.If we can get a government in place that provides Sunnis some hope
that a national government serves their interest, if they can regain
some confidence and trust that it will follow through on commitments
that were made way back in 2006 and 2007 and 2008 and earlier about how
you arrive at, for example, de-Baathification laws and give people
opportunities so they're not locked out of government positions -- if
those things are followed through on, and we are able to combine it with
a sound military strategy, then I think we can be successful. If we
can't, then the idea that the United States or any outside power would
perpetually defeat ISIS I think is unrealistic.As I’ve said before -- I think I said in the previous press
conference -- our military is the best in the world. We can route ISIS
on the ground and keep a lid on things temporarily. But then as soon as
we leave, the same problems come back again. So we’ve got to make sure
that Iraqis understand in the end they're going to be responsible for
their own security. And part of that is going to be the capacity for
them to make compromises.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Last year, you said that you believe
our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of
Congress. In response to Chuck’s question you said you don’t have a
strategy yet, but you’ll reconsider that going forward. But why didn’t
you go to Congress before this current round of strikes in Iraq? Do you
not believe that that’s the case anymore, what you said last year? And
throughout your career you’ve also said that -- you raised concerns
with the expansion of powers of the executive. Are you concerned that
your recent actions, unilaterally, had maybe -- have cut against that?THE PRESIDENT: No. And here’s why: It is not just part of my
responsibility, but it is a sacred duty for me as Commander-in-Chief to
protect the American people. And that requires me to act fast, based on
information I receive, if an embassy of ours or a consulate of ours is
being threatened. The decisions I made were based on very concrete
assessments about the possibility that Erbil might be overrun in the
Kurdish region and that our consulate could be in danger. And I can’t
afford to wait in order to make sure that those folks are protected.But throughout this process, we’ve consulted closely with Congress,
and the feedback I’ve gotten from Congress is, is that we’re doing the
right thing. Now, as we go forward -- as I’ve described to Chuck -- and
look at a broader regional strategy with an international coalition and
partners to systematically degrade ISIL’s capacity to engage in the
terrible violence and disruptions that they’ve been engaging in not just
in Syria, not just in Iraq, but potentially elsewhere if we don’t nip
this at the bud, then those consultations with Congress for something
that is longer term I think become more relevant.And it is my intention that Congress has to have some buy-in as
representatives of the American people. And, by the way, the American
people need to hear what that strategy is. But as I said to Chuck, I
don’t want to put the cart before the horse. And in some of the media
reports the suggestion seems to have been that we’re about to go full
scale on an elaborate strategy for defeating ISIL, and the suggestion, I
guess, has been that we’ll start moving forward imminently and somehow
Congress -- still out of town -- is going to be left in the dark.
That’s not what’s going to happen.

We are going to continue to focus on protecting the American people.
We’re going to continue, where we can, to engage in the sort of
humanitarian acts that saved so many folks who were trapped on a
mountain. We are going to work politically and diplomatically with
folks in the region. And we’re going to cobble together the kind of
coalition that we need for a long-term strategy as soon as we are able
to fit together the military, political and economic components of that
strategy. There will be a military aspect to that, and it’s going to be
important for Congress to know what that is, in part because it may
cost some money.